(3) The Army submitted a request to have the
Services/Agencies meet with DAAS in an effort to resolve interfacing
S/A unique requirements that could be accommodated under DAAS so that
the implementation of AMCL 1 would not be delayed until the S/A
unique requirements are resolved. The DASD(L)SD representative did
not object to the $/A use of DAAS as an interim measure; however, he
wants to be advised of how long it will take for each S/A to fully
implement the AMCL 1.

(4) The Air Force stated that they cannot make
any additional changes to AMCL 1 and meet the established
implementation date of November 1, 1990; however, they have no
objection to the assistance of DAAS.

b. Disposition. AMCL 1 will be reissued as AMCL 1A
with changes agreed to during this meeting and will incorporate its
three addendums. The S/A focal point representatives will meet with
DAAS representatives in Dayton, Ohio to identify individual S/A
requirements. Tentative agreements made with DAAS during this
meeting, scheduled for April 10-11, 1990, will be forwarded to DLSSD
to coordinate with DASD(L)SD for approval prior to implementation.

2. Proposed MILSTRIP Change Letter 33A, Reporting and
Returning Class V Ammunition to the Single Manager Conventional
Ammunition.

a. Discussion. All of the Services/Agencies
concurred in the proposal except the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps
could not provide concurrence/nonconcurrence until the Executive
Director of the Joint Ordnance Commanders Group (JOCG) Supply
Subgroup had reviewed the proposed change. The JOCG Supply Subgroup
concurred with the proposed change to include Class V ammunition
under the Materiel Returns Program (MRP) during their meeting of
February 6-9, 1990. On this basis, the committee agreed to release
PMCL 33A for staffing a request for implementation date.

b. Disposition. We will issue an RFID for the
approved PMCL 33A.

Mar 90 Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Mtg
Encl1 Page 20


about this area were raised and it was agreed that some minor changes
will be necessary when finalizing the AMCL. The consensus supported
the DLA proposal as beneficial. The Army had begun staffing, but did
not have any service comments available for discussion at the
meeting. In response to questions, the MILSTRIP Administrator
confirmed that the shipment status will be sent to all potential
recipients, as indicated in the second RFID for Approved Changes 11
and 15.

b. Disposition. The November 1995 implementation
date was tentatively established based upon responses received prior
to and at the meeting. (The Navy response was received subsequent to
the meeting with an implementation date of November 1, 1995.) The
MILSTRAP Administrator indicated that the lateness of the
implementation date may displease the Office of the Secretary of
Defense since the AMCL is intended to correct findings documented in
two DoD IG Audit reports. If necessary, she will report back to the
committee members. Minor changes to the DLA portion of the proposed
change include forwarding MRA followups for FMS to the International
Logistics Control Office (ILCO) and permitting use of the date
prepared on the ILCO response since they may not have access to the
actual date received. DLA agreed that use of freight forwarder
information to complete the MRA response at the ILCO is satisfactory.
LMI will employ new transaction sets for the MILSTRAP transactions
because the data conveyed is significantly different from existing
transaction sets. MILSTRIP transactions, DI Codes ARH and ASH, are
compatible with MODELS transactions 514 and 516 respectively, and
will be included therein.

19. RECNO 89-354, Automated Transmission of Contract
History Data

a. Discussion. The committee approved RECNO 89-354,
for inclusion in MODELS version 1, at the January 90 Joint
MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Focal Point Committee Meeting. At that meeting,
DLSSD distributed the DI Code DLW contract history data transaction,
which was developed by the Integrated Materiel Management Committee
(IMMC), to the Services/Agencies to review for its acceptability as a
MODELS transaction and to identify any additional required elements.
The Services/Agencies had no additional requirements. DLSSD informed
the committee that the IMMC chair had advised that DI Code DLW was
going to be included in change 1 to DoD 4140.26-M, Defense Integrated
Materiel Management Manual for Consumable Items, and would be
staffed, approved and implemented through the IMMC channels. DLSSD
will publish DI Code DLW, along with DI Codes DLS, DLT, DLU, DLV, and
DLX, in MILSTRAP at a future date. Once published in MILSTRAP, these

Mar 90 Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Mtg
Encl1 Page 14


adapt and enhance these into the EDI MODELS structure. Due to
current resource constraints, the committee agreed to defer this item
to Version 2.

6. RECNO 89-104, Augmentation of Prepositioned Materiel
Receipt Data.
RECNO 89-133, Provide MILSCAP and shipper information
in Requisition Status Transaction

a. Discussion:

(1) The committee approved RECNO 89-104, for
inclusion in MODELS version 1, at the January 90 Joint
MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Focal Point Committee Meeting, where DLA provided a
list of optional contract data elements to be added to the PMR
(transaction 527 (DI Code DU_). The Services were to review DLA’s
list and provide any additional data elements at this meeting. The
Services indicated they had no additional data elements. The
committee agreed with DLA’s recommendation to add: certificate
requirement indicator, critical application indicator, and special
requirements indicator; and to delete: contract delivery date, unit
of issue conversion factor, and FOB site.

(2) The MILSTRAP System Administrator questioned
DLA’s inclusion of a hazardous materiel indicator since this element
was already being added to the PMR under RECNO 89-013, Develop Item
Type Storage Code. DLA wanted the element added under RECNO 89-104
to assure it was included in MODELS PMR data as RECNO 89-013 was not
fully approved yet. RECNO 89-013 approval was pending until the item
type storage codes were developed; and a determination was made as to
whether or not they would be cataloging data elements; and whether
cataloging data, which is disseminated through the Defense Integrated
Data System (DIDS), should be repeated in MODELS transactions. The
Services and DLA indicated that DIDS data was not always readily
accessible, The MILSTRAP System Administrator felt that this was a
Service/Agency system problem. The MODELS FWG chairman ruled that
cataloging data could be included in MODELS transactions when
circumstances warranted it. He approved RECNO 89-013, pending
receipt of the item type storage codes from the responsible DoD
committee, thereby negating the need for including the hazardous
materiel indicator in RECNO 89-104.

(3) LMI determined that the packaging data being
added, per MIL-STD-2073, was extensive and, therefore, recommended
developing two separate segments for packaging and contract data.
The committee agreed to this recommendation.

Mar 90 Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Mtg
Encl1 Pages



3. Proposed MILSTRIP Change Letter 39, DAAS Reject of
Requisitions with Invalid Ship-to and Mail-to Addresses in the MAPAD.

a. Discussion. All of the Services/Agencies
concurred in the proposal. In addition, the Air Force recommended
the proposal include DI AM_ and AT_ transactions. The DLA
recommended that the proposal require ICPs to reject requisitions
received off-line (mail, message, courier, fax, telephone) with
invalid ship-to and mail-to addresses. The committee concurred in
these changes recommended by the Air Force and DLA.

b. Disposition. We will issue an RFID with changes
cited in the discussion paragraph above.

TII. DECISIONS REACHED: Decisions reached are as described in the
discussions paragraph.

Iv. FOLLOWUP ACTIONS REQUIRED: Followup actions are as described
in the Paragraph II disposition for each RECNO.

Prepared By:

Prepared By:

Prepared By:

Approved By:

Approved By:

Attachments:
As Stated

Mar 90 Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Mtg
Encl1 Page 21

:

i
i
i



(1) For RECNOs 89-352 and 89-360, add Data Element 236,
Price Qualifier, to the IQI and RQQ segments. The current qualifiers
in the Data Element Dictionary appear to be adequate for the DoD
requirements at this time. When the procedures are developed, and
other codes are determined to be required, additions can be made at
that time.

(2) For RECNO 89-362, add "EC" for "Entity Category" to
Data Element 66, Identification Code Qualifier. Add the following
codes to Data Element 67, Identification Code:

DO Department of Defense Entity

FE Federal Agency

EM Foreign Military Sales

NA Non-Appropriated Funded Activity

PP Private Party (Non U.S. Government Activity)
SA Security Assistance (Other Than FMS)

UN Undefined

b. Disposition. The recommendations by the MILSBILLS
System Administrator for RECNOs 89-352 and 89-360 are to be added to
the IQI and RQQ segments. The recommendations for RECNOs 89-362 are
to be added to Data Elements 66 and 67. These RECNOs are considered
complete.

23. RECNO 89-366, Recording Date of Inspection in Depot
Receipt Transaction

a. Discussion. This enhancement recommended adding a
new data element to the DI Code D4_ receipt (transaction 527) to
record the date of inspection. This information could then be passed
to the office responsible for payment to contractors for use in
determining if an interest penalty is due the contractor. Addition
of this code would reduce the amount of manual work associated with
providing this data off-line. DLA indicated this information was
needed for locally administered, non-fast pay contracts, whenever the
contract requires the depot inspect and/or accept prior to paying the
contractor. After discussing the recommendation, the committee
agreed that a date of inspection/acceptance should be added to
transaction 527 for DI Code D4 .

b. Disposition. LMI will add a date data element,
which will be defined as date of inspection/acceptance, to
transaction 527 for DI Code D4_. LMI will ascertain what this
element is called in MILSCAP and use the same terminology.

Mar 90 Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Mtg
Encl1 Page 18


b. Disposition. An AMCL will be issued with
staggered implementation dates and will contain changes as follows:

{1) The fourth sentence to the revised
subparagraph E.2., chapter 7, will be deleted.

(2) The word "also" will be deleted from the
fifth sentence of the revised subparagraph E.2., chapter 7.

(3) Subparagraph L.2., chapter 7, will be changed
to read:

"2. Upon completion of an MOV, as required by receipt of
scheduled validation request documents, a DI AP_ response (format
shown in appendix C26) for each DI AN_ request document (or
requisition on the listing) will be furnished to the supply source
which submitted the requests. Services/Agencies have the option to
allow their activities to use the DI AP8 transaction (appendix C48)
to respond to MOV requests which have been verified as valid and the
quantity field remains unchanged. The DI AP8 transaction will not be
generated until all changes relating to the applicable MOV cycle have
been made. Responses will be submitted to the supply source by the
reply due date shown in the request documents. The requisitioners
will indicate the action to be taken on each scheduled MOV request as
follows:"”

(4) The new subparagraph L.5., chapter 7, will be
changed to read:

"S.  DAAS will provide appropriate DI AP_ responses to the
respective supply source for each DI AP8 transaction received. DAAS
will process the DI AP8 no earlier than 7 days after receipt, but no
later than the last day of the cycle."

(5) The second sentence to paragraph 1. of the
new Appendix A26, Message Request for DAAS MOV Response, will be
deleted.

(6) The above changes to Approved MILSTRIP Change
37 completes action required on RECNO 89-140.

12. RECNO 89-217, Maintaining Accountability During
Maintenance Actions (Review PMCL 5A/6A Replies)

a. Discussion. Replies to Joint Proposed MILS
Changes 5A (MILSTRAP) and 6A (MILSTRIP) were received from all
Services and Agencies except the Army. Army stated that they had no

Mar 90 Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Mtg
Encii1 Page 10


8. RECNO 89-203, Expand the Cooperative Logistics Program
Support Code (CLPSC) to Differentiate Between Foreign Military Sales
Order (FMSO) I and II Requisitions (Approved MILSTRIP Change 22).

RECNO 89-113, Develop Unique Requisition Contract and
Shipping Information (DLSS Rp 72 Portion).

a. Discussion. RECNO 89-203 was developed from a
request for implementation date (RFID) for Approved MILSTRIP Change
22, CLPSC. As a result of staffing AMC 22, the Navy indicated they
would not use the new codes because their Cooperative Logistics
Supply Support Arrangements (CLSSAs) are managed on a financial
basis. The Army and Air Force stated they would probably not use the
new codes. The change has been referred to the Director for
International Logistics (DASD(L)IL) for determination of the need for
the new CLPSCs. In regard to RECNO 89-113, the committee determined
that the note for data segment element ROF09, "otherwise ROFO9 is
blank" should be deleted. The Air Force indicated that for FMS
requisitions they may use rp 72 (RQF09) to convey intra~Service
information for CLSSA requirements.

b. Disposition. RECNO 89-203 is suspended pending
receipt of further guidance from the Director for International
Logistics (DASD(L)IL. LMI will delete the words "otherwise ROFO9 is
blank" from the note for data segment ROF09. RECNO 89-113 is
considered complete.

9. RECNO 89-207, Materiel Release Order Confirmation of
Foreign Military Sales Shipments (Discuss Army/DLA Research of DAAS
Data to Determine Disposition of Proposed MILSTRIP Change 24).

a. Discussion. The S/As have nonconcurred in PMCL
24. At MILSTRIP Focal Point Committee Meeting 90-1, November 28-30,
1989, the MILSBILLS Administrator provided the MILSTRIP focal points
a DAASO special report that identified the number of billing
adjustment requests with Advice Code 35 generated during the period
of October 1-31, 1989. Advice Code 35 is used to advise that the
ILCO has received shipment status but no billing. The DLA and Army
requested the DAASO to provide a listing of billing adjustment
requests to be used to research the problem. The Army and DLA stated
the listings had not been received as of March 16, 1990; therefore,
they could not perform the required research. If the DAASO data
warrants a change to MILSTRIP, PMCL 24 will have to be changed to
require the supply source to request the DAASO to provide shipment
data in lieu of the DAASO automatically providing the data.

Mar 90 Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Mtg
Encl1 Page7


(4) At the January 90 meeting, it was agreed that
the contract data segment being added to the PMR, under RECNO 89-104,
would also be added to MILSTRIP contract status (transaction 514 (DI
Code AB_)), under RECNO 89-133. LMI recommended, and the committee
agreed, to add only the new contract data segment to transaction 514
and not the packaging data segment.

b. Disposition. Under RECNO 89-104, LMI will add two
new optional segments (contract data and packaging data) to
transaction 527 (DI Code DU_). Under RECNO 89-133, LMI will add the
new, optional contract data segment to transaction 514 (DI Code AB).
The packaging data segment will be defined as indicated in
MIL-STD-2073. The contract data elements are shown at attachment 3
[NOTE: If a contract data element can be incorporated in segments Nl
through N4 it is so noted in attachment 3, all others will be
included in the new contract data segment].

E.K. - DO I NEED TO PUT APPROVAL OF 89-13 IN THIS DISPOSITION ??
OR SHOULD IT BE ADDED AS AN ITEM NUMBER???

7. RECNO 89-147, Deployed Unit Requisitions.

a. Discussion. The Navy discussed their problem of
diverting shipments of materiel to follow deployed units when
deployed units change locations. The committee suggested using DAAS
to change the address of the DoDAAC when deployed units change
locations and that LOGPLAN should cover changing locations as an
internal mechanism. The Navy should use diversion procedures under
MILSTRIP. The committee disagreed with any changes to the RQB to
allow requisitions to follow deployed units stating procedures are
currently in existence to cover this situation.

b. Disposition. The Navy agreed to take this
recommendation back for further investigation. They will consider
the use of the DoDAAD procedures for changing DoDAAC addresses to
receive materiel and modifier procedures under MILSTRIP for diverting
shipments to deployed units changing locations. This enhancement is
considered closed. Navy will submit a new enhancement if more is
required. LMI will not modify the N1 coding.

Mar 90 Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Mtg
Encli Page 6



24. RECNO 90-008, Reason for Requisition. See topic 15
above.

C. MILSTRIP Proposals:

1. Approved MILSTRIP Change Letter (AMCL) 1, Control of
Access to DoD Materiel Inventories Required by Defense Contractors.

a. Discussion. The DASD(L)SD representative stated
that the objective of this discussion is to resolve interface problem
issues on AMCL 1 since it must be implemented on November 1, 1990 for
as many contracts as possible. A time schedule should be developed
for applying GFM controls on any remaining contracts not under GFM
controls after November 1, 1990.

(1) The committee discussed the DLA comments
which requested AMCL 1 be changed to:

(a) Develop a new DI Code AX3 originated by
the SOS and passed to the MCA as a result of processing materiel
release confirmations, receipts for returned/unused GFM, and other
transactions which necessitates the increase/decrease of quantities
approved for issue on GFM contracts. The committee did not agree
with the need for the new DI Code AX3; however, they did not object
to DLA’s use of it internally.

(b) Change the definition of Status Code DJ
to read: “GFM quantity requisitioned partially exceeds the contract
authorized quantity. Quantity has been adjusted to reflect
authorized quantity”. The committee concurred with the change to the
Status Code DJ explanation.

(c) Develop advice codes for the MCA to use
when the AX1 contains an invalid document number, unit of issue,
quantity, or signal code. The committee disagreed with the
development of new advice codes because the conditions cited by DLA
should have been discovered in the initial requisition edit process
by the SOS before the generation of the DI Code AX1.

(2) The Navy’s comments do not require any
revision to AMCL 1; however, changes are required in processing the
DI Codes AX1 and AX2 transactions between Navy and DAAS.

Mar 90 Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Mtg
Encl1 Page 19

g
i
i
$
i
i
i
;
:
H



Excessive Quantity (appendix C49) by the specified response date,
otherwise the requisition will be automatically canceled."

(2) Change chapter 4, paragraph H.9. to read as
follows:

"9. Supply sources will furnish a DI Code AQV transaction
when the intent is to request customer verification of an exceedingly
large quantity requisition.”

(3) Change chapter 4, paragraph H.9.b. to read as
follows:

"pb. The quantity field of the DI Code AQR
transaction will contain the actual quantity required. If less than
the original requisitioned quantity, the difference will be canceled
with BQ status. If the quantity field is all zeros, then the entire
requisition will be canceled with BQ status. An increase in the
quantity field is not authorized."

(4) Paragraphs 4 and 5 of PMCL 29A will be
deleted.

(5) Appendix C48 will be changed to leave as
blank rp 51-53, 57-61, 65-66, and 74-80.

(6) Appendix C48, rp 67-69, will be changed to
allow for intra~Service use.

(7) Appendix C49 will be changed to leave as
blank rp 7-24, 45-69, and 74-80.

11. RECNO 89-213, Temporary Exemption of Selected Units
from the MOV Process (DoDIG 89-046). (Review RFID Replies for
Approved MILSTRIP Change 37) .

RECNO 89-140, Retention of Navy Exception Processing
for MOV.

a. Discussion. All of the Services/Agencies except
the Army had provided recommended implementation dates. The Army
indicated they would provide a date within 30 days from
March 19, 1990. The committee determined the change could be
implemented on a staggered basis with some minor modifications to the
procedures.

Mar 90 Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Mtg
Encl1 Page?


DLSSD-B

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING

SUBJECT: Minutes: Joint DoD MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Focal Point Committee
Meeting, March 19-23, 1990

I. PURPOSE: DoD Directive 4000.25 requires quarterly meetings of
the Defense Logistics Standard Systems Focal Point Committees. This
joint meeting of the DoD MILSTRAP and MILSTRIP committees was
convened at 0830, March 19, 1990, in the Defense Logistics Standard
Systems Division conference room, 6301 Little River Turnpike,
Alexandria, VA. The primary purpose of the meeting was to review the
Modernization of Defense Logistics Standard Systems (MODELS)
recommendations, listed in the agenda at attachment 1, determine
whether the recommendations should be adopted, and identify the
required data elements, segments, and transactions involved to
include a "wedge" in the MODELS base line. Development of any needed
supporting procedures will be accomplished after the base line is
established in May 1990. MILSTRIP/MILSTRAP proposals, listed in
attachment 1, were also scheduled for discussion to resolve comments
and determine future action. A list of attendees is at attachment 2.

Ir. BRIEF SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS:

A. Administrative. The System Administrators opened the
meeting with introductions, routine administrative comments, and an
explanation of the meeting objectives.

B. MODELS Enhancements:
1. RECNO 89-043, Transmit Alert of Defective Items.

a. Discussion. At their February 26 to March 7,
1990, meeting, the MODELS Functional Working Group (FWG) agreed with
the focal point committee recommendation to consider RECNO 89-043 in
conjunction with RECNO 89-344, Automate All Discrepancy Reports Under
One Reporting System. The Navy was to review a list of alert
notification data elements, suggested by DLA, and provide any

Encl 1

3
H



b. Disposition. Action for enhancement is considered
complete. DLSSD will write draft procedures from existing manuals.

15. RECNO 89-319, Enhance Demand Recording Information-—
Reason for Requisition Portion

RECNO 89-326, RIMSTOP Stockage Code as a DoD Standard
for Defining Purpose Codes

RECNO 89-346, Reason for Stocking and Requisition
Originator Issues -- Type of Requisition Portion

RECNO 90-008, Reason for Requisition
a. Discussion:

(1) The above enhancements were addressed jointly
by the committee to clarify the interrelationship of the proposed
codes which identify reasons for requisitioning and reasons for
stockage. RECNOs 89-319, 89-326, and 89-346 were deferred from the
January Joint MILSTRIP/MILSTRAP Focal Point Committee Meeting so that
the Navy focal point could prepare additional justification and
rational for the enhancements and ascertain whether the reason for
requisition and the reason for stockage could be merged into a single
element. Also, DLSSD was to coordinate with DASD (L/SD) to determine
the current status of RIMSTOP policy. RECNO 90-008 was grouped with
the above enhancements because it too requests a new code to identify
the type of requisition as currently indicated by the character
appearing in record position (rp) 40 of the transaction document
number.

(2) The Navy presented the results of their review
to the committee as follows. No significant justification could be
found to support joining the reason for requisition with the reason
for stockage. The reason for stockage which identifies why the item
is stocked should be resident in the data base at the storage point,
but need not be passed on to other parties. The reason for
requisition provides more definitive information about why the
requisition has been placed. Accurate information of this type will
help the ICP interpret the Demand Code entry (for recurring/
nonrecurring demand) as it is frequently misunderstood and misused at
the retail level. It was suggested that a mechanized matrix could be
developed to perform this task.

b. Disposition. The committee agreed to recommend
that a Reason for Requisition be adopted as an optional 01/03 ID

Mar 90 Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Mtg
Encl1 Page 12


official response at this time. The FWG chairman reiterated that
DLSSD would not delay action on an item due to nonreceipt of a
Service/Agency reply. The committee agreed that there wasn’t
sufficient time to discuss the comments to the proposals at this
meeting. LMI indicated that, as written, the PMCL does not impact
MODELS as the requirements have already been incorporated.

b. Disposition. RECNO 89-217 is closed for MODELS
change purposes. The comments review, for Joint Proposed MILS
Changes 5A and 6A, was deferred to a later date.

13. RECNO 89-219, Reason For Disposal (Review Reasons and
Finalize ID List) .

a. Discussion. The committee discussed the reasons
for disposal cited in the meeting minutes from the joint
MILSTRIP/MILSTRAP committee held in January. "Other, Surplus" will
be included as an additional reason code. "Beyond Capability of
Maintenance" will be added for use along with "Maintenance
Expenditure Limit" under the same code. The committee agreed to
include DI DAC (transaction set 533) under the DSI segment.

b. Disposition. LMI will assign one-position
randomly assigned alpha codes for the listing of approved reasons for
disposal. Data element 2002, Reason for Disposal Code, will be an
01/02 ID element under the DSI segment in transaction sets 514, 516,
517, 527, 532, and 533.

14. RECNO 89-315, Suffix Code Assignment.

RECNO 89-361, DoD Audit Trail Capability for Suffix
Code Assignments.

a. Discussion. RECNO 89-361 was rolled into 89-315
and will be considered in conjunction with RECNO 89-311. The FWG
disapproved the portion of RECNO 89-315 to develop a new electronic
variable-length query to provide status of the entire requisitioned
quantity back to the requisitioner, by requisition suffix code.
DLSSD looked for volunteers to lead in writing procedures for this
enhancement which includes RECNOs 89~361, 89-311, 89-361 and 89-369;
however, no one accepted. DLA suggested making a draft--then the
Services/Agencies could review for content and input additional
information. FWG will include a discussion of writing procedures for
enhancements as an agenda topic at their April meeting.

Mar 90 Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Mtg
Encl1 Page 11


b. Disposition. PMCL 24 is suspended until
completion of research by the Army and DLA.

10. RECNO 89-210, Automated Verification of Excessive
Quantity Requisitions (Review of Proposed MILSTRIP Change 29A

Replies) .

a. Discussion. The Army and Navy nonconcurred in the
proposal; however, the Army recommended a change that would, if
adopted, overcome their objections to the proposal. The Navy and the
other committee members concurred in the Army’s change. The
committee questioned how the future anticipated annual requirements,
that may be entered in the response to the request for verification
of excessive quantity (DI Code AQR) would be used. It was agreed to
delete this data from the response (DI Code AQR). The GSA objected
to the use of Status Code BO. The committee agreed that it was not
necessary to use Status Code BO because the definition of the new
transaction DI Code AQV, Verification of Excessive Quantity
Requisition, fully explains its use. The committee agreed that the
same rules for determining the recipient of MOV requests, chapter 7,
paragraph F., should be used for determining the recipient of DI Code
AQV transactions. The committee agreed to reduce the amount of data
that must be included in the DI Code AQV and DI Code AQR
transactions.

b. Disposition. An RFID will be issued with changes
as follows:

(1) Change chapter 3, paragraph D.2. to read as
follows:

"2. Requisitions that reflect quantities which exceed normal
demands or quantities that appear to be excessive or in error may be
verified by the supply source before positive supply is taken. When
the supply source determines that the requisitioned quantity needs to
be verified, the supply source will generate a DI Code AQV,
verification of Excessive Quantity Requisition (appendix C48). The
DI Code AQV will be provided to the activity as designated by the
M&S. If the M&S is 0, the DI Code AQV will be provided to the
activity designated by the character in rp 54. If the character in
rp 54 is invalid, the DI Code AQV will be provided to the
requisitioner (rp 30-35). If the M&S is F, G, P, or 2, the DI Code
AQV will be provided to the requisitioner (rp 30-35). A response is
due within 30 days from the date of receipt of the DI Code AQV for
U.S. Forces and 75 days for FMS customers. Requisitioners will
respond with a DI Code AQR, Response to Request for Verification of

Mar 90 Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Mtg
Encli Pages

:
i
'
i



Action Ofer:
Date:

Typed by:
Doc. Name
ALIS Cabinet:
ALIS Drawer:
ALIS Folder:

DLSSD File No.:
DLSSD File No.:

M. Hefner, V. Savage, E. Hilert
Mar 90

all

STRAP/STRIP MTG MAR 90--ENC
MILSTRAP

In Process

BT
BM 236.20 (2)

Mar 90 Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Mtg

Encl1

Page 22



package for applicability to their systems. We recommend that RECNO
89-088 be deferred to MODELS Version 2.

4, RECNO 89-094, MODELS Transaction for Certificate of
Disposal.

a. Discussion. The Certificate of Disposal is
currently a manual form which provides notification to DRMS that
waste materiel has been destroyed under S/A regulations. The problem
with automating the Certificate of Disposal is similar to the issue
surrounding electronic signature authentication, Under the manual
system, contractors complain of having to hold materiel awaiting
disposition instructions. The Certificate of Disposal acts like the
DD Form 250 which authorizes payment to the contractor. We also
discussed merging the invoice with the certificate. The Coast Guard
mentioned different rules applicable to Federal civil
Agencies/activities regarding the turn-in of automated equipment
(formerly ADPE) .

b. Disposition. We tabled this topic to determine
under which DLSSD system to address these issues and will coordinate
our decisions with MILSBILLS, MILSCAP, MILSTRIP, MILSTRAP, and LMI
(applicability to the 810 transaction). We also agreed that if the
additional information could not be finalized within the next 1 or 2
weeks that we would recommend this topic for inclusion under MODELS
Version 2.

5. RECNO 89-096, Augmentation of Supply Support Requests

a. Discussion. This enhancement proposes use of EDI
technology to transmit Provisioning Line Item Supply Support Requests
(SSRs). These are prepared by the Services to furnish supply and
technical information relative to individual items which are
required, such as to support a new weapons system. Under existing
formats, the amount of information conveyed is hampered by the 80
record positions available. A DLA subject matter expert, Mr. John
Ferguson, spoke to the committee about the need for advancement in
this area and about current related developments. He described the
Data Review and Monitoring Aid (DRAMA) automated system being
developed by an Air Force and McDonald Douglas team. Also, Mr.
Ferguson indicated that there is significant interest in
incorporating the 19 data elements listed by DLA which are not
currently available in the SSR C series formats.

b. Disposition. There are over a dozen C series
transactions used to relate SSRs. Resources must be allocated to

Mar 90 Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Mtg
Encl1 Page4


logistics reassignment related transactions will be removed from

DoD 4140.26-M. The Service/Agency MILSTRAP Focal Points voiced their
concerns over procedural transactions being implemented through IMMC
channels and bypassing their established staffing procedures.

b. Disposition. LMI will incorporate DI Code DLW in
MODELS as agreed to at the January 90 meeting. DLSSD will staff an
RFID to establish a date for incorporating Logistics Reassignment
transactions (DI Codes DLS through DLX), implemented by the IMMC, in
MILSTRAP.

20. RECNO 89-356, RECNO 89-356, Notification of Customer
Nonresponse to Materiel Obligation Validation (MOV) Request (DoDIG
7SL-050) (Review Proposed MILSTRIP Change 28A Replies) .

a. Discussion. The Army and Navy nonconcurred in the
proposal. The Army’s nonconcurrence was predicated on AMCL 150B
being implemented by all the Services/Agencies; specifically, that
“requisition’s which are to be filled by direct delivery from
vendors, status codes BV and BZ, are excluded from automatic
cancellation of the MOV process." The Navy nonconcurred because of
their interpretation of the change that the new DI AV_ transaction
would perform the exact functions as the DI AN_ transaction and would
have the same results. The proposal does not duplicate the functions
of the DI AN_. The proposal will require a notification to be
provided to customers of nonresponse to MOV request when backordered
requisitions are in BZ status. The notification will advise the
customer that materiel will be shipped and charged to the
requisitioner unless an appropriate cancellation is received by the
supply source. The proposal, PMCL 28A, was a counter proposal to
PMCL 28, which was written in response to DoDIG Audit Report No.
89-046, recommendation A.1.b., to include the cancellation and
reinstatement provision of AMCL 150A for items in preaward
procurement status. The Services/Agencies approved the staffing of
PMCL 28A as an alternative to PMCL 28 at MILSTRIP Focal Point Meeting
89-4, July 11-13, 1989.

b. Disposition. An RFID will be issued with changes
as follows:

(1) The second sentence of chapter 7, paragraph
F., will be changed to read:

"MOV requests and DI AV_ transactions will be transmitted to the
activities determined under the following rules:

Mar 90 Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Mtg
Encl1 Page 15


The DLA disagreed because their system only processes the excess
reports 2 or 3 times a week. DEPRA could fill incoming requisitions
while the report was pending processing by the wholesale manager.
The committee did not agree with establishing a new status code that
would allow the wholesale manager to advise the reporting activity
that the excess materiel is not required at this time and to report
the materiel, if is still considered excess, in the next reporting
cycle. The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps believed that
this code would probable be used by the wholesale manager in place of
using Status Code TB (return without credit). Also, that the
wholesale manager would use the code over and over. The current
codes are sufficient and the revised PMCL 38, per the S/A comments,
maximizes the use of excess.

b. Disposition. The Service/Agency comments will be
discussed at a meeting scheduled for April 18-20, 1990, Cameron
Station, Building 4, Room 4D327. The S/A are bringing their unique
DEPRA processing rules for funded and unfunded requisitions. In
addition, the S/As are also to provide their recommendations for
issue priority designators that should be processed by DEPRA. A
revised DEPRA manual that includes the latest effective approved
changes will be available for use. Requirements under RECNO 89-353
will be satisfied by the addition of advice codes.

22. RECNO 89-360, Unit Price/Billing Flexibility.
RECNO 89-352, Multiple Unit Price Fields.

RECNO 89-362, Identify the Ultimate Recipient or Buyer
of DoD Materiel in the Requisition.

a. Discussion. In regard to RECNOs 89-352 and
89-360, the committee determined that advice codes could be used to
advise that a price different than the standard price is to be
used/charged. The committee also determined that status codes could
be used to advise the customer that the price being charged or
allowed (credit) is different than the standard price, The
committee, in regard to RECNO 89-362, determined that a list of codes
should be developed to identify the type of activity/organization
that could be the ultimate recipient of DoD materiel. The committee
referred all three RECNOs to the DoD MILSBILLS System Administration
for development of price qualifiers for the price cited on the
transaction and categories of ultimate recipients of DoD materiel.
Subsequent to the meeting, the DoD MILSBILLS System Administrator
provided the following recommendations:

Mar 90 Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Mtg
Enci1 Page 17



reasons for requesting an extension as cited in Chapter 5 of the
MILSTRAP manual. These are large quantities, nonavailability of
personnel and/or test equipment, or other circumstances considered
justified by the storage activity Commander. Denial codes similar to
those used on the MILSTRIP DI Code A6é_ transaction will be assigned
to the DVZ reply. LMI may elect to create new transaction sets for
the reclassification transactions, rather than the 533 transaction as
originally proposed, due to complexity of the looping structure. LMI
will attempt to complete this enhancement for the MODELS baseline.

3. RECNO 89-088, Unique EDDS Diversion Order, Denial,
Confirmation, Status Transaction.

RECNO 89-144, Notification to Transshipment Facility of
Incoming Consolidation/Purpose/Destination Information.

RECNO 89-339, Develop MODELS to Accommodate Navy
Advanced Shipping System Transactions (Include Capability to Group
BK_ Transactions) .

a. Discussion. RECNOs 89-144 and 89-339 were
deleted. Requirements under these RECNOs were moved to RECNO 89-088
with MILSTRAP as the lead system interfacing with MILSTRIP and DTEDI.
Since there were a few unresolved issues regarding these
recommendations; such as, the status of TRANSCOM’s effort to develop
procedures on consolidating shipments during various stages in the
shipment channel~-transportation tracking between nodes, the Navy
volunteered to take the lead in coordinating the combined effort now
covered under this enhancement. The Navy will contact the other S/As
and request their input. The Navy will set up a meeting between the
S/As and advise DLSSD of the established meeting date. After the
meeting with the S/As, the Navy will provide the status of the
meeting to either the Joint MILSTRIP/MILSTRAP Committee, or to the
MODELS Functional Working Group in August 1990. We will also give
the FMS community an opportunity to review the final package for
applicability within their systems. We suggested that RECNO 89-088
be deferred until MODELS Version 2.

b. Disposition. We agreed to revise the title of
RECNO 89-088 to read: Consolidated Processing Point for Shipments and
Returns, which more appropriately define requirements transferred
from the deleted RECNOs 89-144 and 89-339. The Navy will meet with
DLA, Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps during their investigation of
the combined effort now addressed under this enhancement. The Navy
will report their findings to the MILSTRIP/MILSTRAP Committee or to
the FWG in August 1990. We will have the ILCOs review the final

Mar 90 Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Mtg
Enct1 Page3


additions at this meeting. Navy had no additional data elements.
DLA recommended adding ‘action office Product Quality Discrepancy
Report (PQDR) Number’.

b. Disposition. LMI will add ‘action office PQDR
number’ to the alert notification which will be addressed in MODELS
version 2 under the Supply Discrepancy Reporting consolidation
effort.

2. RECNO 89-077, Means for ICPs to Direct Storage
Activities to Reclassify Materiel.

a. Discussion. This enhancement was previously
discussed at the January 90 Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Focal Point
Committee Meeting at which time it was agreed that two transactions
would be developed to accomplish the Inventory Control Point (ICP)
request for reclassification of materiel and the storage activity
reply. Following the meeting, DLSSD, working with LMI, formatted the
transactions and assigned a third DI code to separate up and down
traffic as follows: DI Code DVX, ICP Request/Followup for
Reclassification; DI Code DVY¥, Request for Extension of the
Reclassification Timeframe; and DI Code DVZ, Reclassification Reply.
DLSSD also added a date field and management code to each transaction
to accommodate the intended purpose. At the March meeting, DLSSD
clarified that the DVZ constituted a negative reply and that a
positive reply would be submitted in the form of the DI Code DAC,
Dual Inventory Adjustment transaction. An advice code will be added
to the DAC transaction to be used when it is submitted in response to
an ICP followup. Services and Agencies were asked to provide reasons
why reclassification cannot be effected. The Services responded that
relatively few conditions exist whereby the storage activity would
refuse the request to reclassify materiel. The primary example cited
was the nonavailability of the specified materiel. At this point the
committee discussed the possibility of returning to the original two
transactions. There was also a lengthy discussion concerning the
necessity for including serial number tracking on the
reclassification formats and the need to break out storage activity
responses by management code.

b. Disposition. LMI will develop formats for
reclassification to include serial number tracking, looping by denial
code on the DVZ reply, and a workload priority designator as
requested by the Army. LMI will structure the formats so that the
Procurement Instrument Number (PIN) or a document number functions as
a control number in the base (rather than the from/to portion) of the
transactions. LMI will develop management codes based upon the

Mar 90 Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Mtg
Encii Page2


element to be included in the RQD segment for transactions 511, 518,
and 532. The RECNO 89-346 request for such a code will be rolled up
under RECNO 89-319. The committee also agreed to recommend
disapproval of the reason for stockage request and closing of RECNO
89-326. Should any Service/Agency determine a need for such
information, the RQU segment could be used. DLSSD determined that
the RIMSTOP policy is still in effect and that the reasons for
stockage enumerated therein should be considered when developing
veasons for requisition. Reasons for requisition supplied by the
Navy and existing Army codes for major items will provide the basis
for the new data element. The specific reasons for requisition will
be developed at a later date. The enhancement 90-008 will retain its
separate identity. It was agreed that the information provided by
the rp 40 character differs from that envisioned for the new Reason
for Requisition. Instead, a Utilization Code will be recommended as
an optional 01/02 ID element to be placed in the RFL segment for
transaction 511 (DI Codes AO_, AM_ and AT_), 515 (DI Codes FTA and
FTE), 518 (DI Codes A2_/A3_/A4_) , 527 (DI Codes D6_, DW_, and DF_),
and 532 (D7_).

16. RECNO 89-326, RIMSTOP Stockage Code as a DoD Standard
for Defining Purpose Codes. See topic 15 above.

17. RECNO 89-346, Reason for Stocking and Requisition
Originator Issues -- Type of Requisition Portion. See topic 15
above.

18. RECNO 89-351, Enhanced MRA Procedures

a. Discussion. Discussion under this enhancement
number addressed that portion of the proposal that originated with
PMCLs 4. It was agreed at the January Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Focal
Point Committee Meeting that LMI would develop MODELS transactions as
required to comply with AMCL 11 (MILSTRAP) and 15 (MILSTRIP) as
enhanced by a DLA proposal submitted at the meeting. Following the
meeting DLSSD restaffed the RFID with the DLA enhancement. The
committee reviewed Service/Agency positions and comments on the RFID
and confirmed that implementation dates submitted prior to the DLA
proposal are still valid. It was noted that no response to either
the original or revised RFID had been received from the Navy or Army.
The Navy and Army representatives were asked to provide status on
their responses to the RFID. The Navy indicated that their analysis
was nearly completed and that a tentative date of November 1995 as
applicable to the CONUS portion could be set. The Navy questioned
the workload savings in expanding the proposal to unconfirmed MROs
for Foreign Military Sales (FMS). Additional questions and concerns

Mar 90 Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Mtg
Encl1 Page 13


(2) The format for the DI AV_ transaction will be
changed to leave as blank rp 51-53 and 57-79.

21. RECNO 89-357, Inter-Service Lateral Redistribution
Program (DoDIG 89-115) (Review MILSTRIP Proposed Change 38 Replies).

RECNO 89-353, Distinguishing Excess and Long Supply in
DI Code FTE.

a. Discussion. The Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps,
and DLA nonconcurred in the proposal as written, however, they all
provided comments for improving the proposal. The Army stated they
had not completed the staffing of the proposal with their users. The
DLA requested the proposal clarify the process of unfunded
requisitions (who can submit them/how will they be processed). The
Services/Agencies were requested to provide their procedures for
DEPRA processing of unfunded and funded requisitions to DLSSD-BM no
later than May 1, 1990. The DLA recommended a new excess transaction
advice code be assigned for activities to indicate that the reported
quantity is below the retention level and is only available to be
returned for credit or to fill reimbursable requisitions. The
committee agreed with DLA. The Navy, Marine Corps, and DLA requested
the procedures be clarified for billing and reimbursement of issue
related costs. The billing and reimbursement comments will be
referred to the DoD MILSBILLS Administrator for action. The DLA
recommended paragraph C.2.a., chapter 4, DEPRA, be changed to
increase the concurrent DEPRA/ICP screening period. The committee
agreed that the time period should be extended to a maximum of 75
days. The DLA recommended paragraph C.2.b., chapter 4, DEPRA, be
changed to increase the screening period for items reported only to
DEPRA. The committee agreed that the time period should be extended
to a maximum of 75 days. The Navy requested, that in view of the
number of comments and the limited amount of time available, that a
separate meeting be scheduled to fully discuss all responses to PMCL
38. The committee agreed that a 3-day meeting should be held to
completely review the comments using a revised copy of DEPRA that
incorporates all the latest effective approved changes. After the
committee agreed that a separate meeting should be held, they agreed
to discuss the DoD IG’s recommended changes to PMCL 38 prior to
discussing another agenda topic. The DoD IG’s comment to add a new
excess transaction code was in accord with DLA’s recommendation for a
new code (see above). The committee did not agree that the start of
the DEPRA’s lateral redistribution program should be delayed until
receipt of the wholesale manager’s response to the excess report.

The Navy disagreed because the present concurrent screening doubles
the chances of the excess being used to fill existing requirements.

Mar 90 Joint MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP Mtg
Encl1 Page 16